Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I might be wrong...but one of my perceived problems with Detroit...and correct me if I'm wrong, or if you think otherwise.
While the immediate downtown looks great with the tall buildings and the new waterfront.
You STILL basically have miles and miles of nothingness all the way around. The streets are so massively wide...giving a stronger feel of desoltude..and the majority of houses are residential with small yard..and many times abandoned.
I think if Detroit would have Manhattanized itself more....I mean, provided blocks and blocks and blocks with stores on the ground level, and apartment dwellers living above them...and more condensed, and then built around the downtown area, it would have been more successful.
Well, sort of, except that the "nothingness" has a population density of thousands of people per square mile. The density of Hamtramck was 10,900/sq mile at the last census.
Detroit is a victim of success. After World War II, the American dream was a house in the suburbs and a car in the driveway. More people in Detroit had the means to execute that plan than anywhere else.
Well, sort of, except that the "nothingness" has a population density of thousands of people per square mile. The density of Hamtramck was 10,900/sq mile at the last census.
Detroit is a victim of success. After World War II, the American dream was a house in the suburbs and a car in the driveway. More people in Detroit had the means to execute that plan than anywhere else.
That's definitely part of it, but I don't know if I would be calling it "success"... the fact that the last two generations of Detroiters have been brought-up in one of the most segregated cultures in the country doesn't exactly bode well for putting a new attitude and culture on a foundering city.
For the most part the suburbanites are either completely apathetic to the plight of the city of Detroit or want to see it fail, hoping that the independant economic forces in the suburbs (i.e. auto-companines and auto-suppliers) can continue to operate without any City input.
Even worse, the majority of the people in the city would rather spite the suburbs for "sticking their nose into the City's business" than start a genuine process of working together.
As long as people refuse to live near the City of Detroit, there will be less and less businesses willing to locate themselves in the city. Without those tax dollars the city will not be able to improve it's roads, schools, or anything else.
The "us-vs.-them" attitude has already reached a crescendo (and seems to just about any time there's an election for public office), and it seems just about everybody would rather be miserable seperate than working together. I don't see this changing with today's population.
The state government needs to say "Detroit and its suburbs will get along together nicely," with an obvious threat for politicians on either side who fail to "get along." If a politician tries to obstruct a "friendly city-suburb partnership" the politician will have his or her tax records examined to see if the state can use tax issues to bully him or her. The state can use any method of intimidation and harrassment it can to force anti-"partnership" politicians to shut up. The state should have the right to unilaterally remove city council members and/or any city employee who continues to fail to abide by the required "partnership."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTUCache
That's definitely part of it, but I don't know if I would be calling it "success"... the fact that the last two generations of Detroiters have been brought-up in one of the most segregated cultures in the country doesn't exactly bode well for putting a new attitude and culture on a foundering city.
For the most part the suburbanites are either completely apathetic to the plight of the city of Detroit or want to see it fail, hoping that the independant economic forces in the suburbs (i.e. auto-companines and auto-suppliers) can continue to operate without any City input.
Even worse, the majority of the people in the city would rather spite the suburbs for "sticking their nose into the City's business" than start a genuine process of working together.
As long as people refuse to live near the City of Detroit, there will be less and less businesses willing to locate themselves in the city. Without those tax dollars the city will not be able to improve it's roads, schools, or anything else.
The "us-vs.-them" attitude has already reached a crescendo (and seems to just about any time there's an election for public office), and it seems just about everybody would rather be miserable seperate than working together. I don't see this changing with today's population.
... threat for politicians...use tax issues to bully him or her. The state can use any method of intimidation and harrassment it can to force... The state should have the right to unilaterally remove city council members and/or any city employee...
Hmmm... sounds like the democratic system may not be the system for you.
Unfortunately, until the voters decide they want these things from their politicians, instead of the exact opposite, I seriously don't think that the state (or any other level of government) should have the power to impose that on publicly elected officials (no matter how unimaginably incompetent or corrupt they may be). The idea that Kwame would have a better chance of getting re-elected right now than Dennis Archer is pretty telling about the priorities of voters in the city, and what types of politicians they've been brought up to expect and want.
Somehow I don't think higher-level politicians pushing around lower-level ones is going to be the answer here....
In Texas the state government has interfered when local voters do nothing to correct their own problems.
Case in point: Wilmer Hutchins ISD, covering parts of southern Dallas and the cities of Wilmer and Hutchins, was one of the most poorly-run districts in the state. The ISD ran out of money, and the state decided to have the district merged with Dallas ISD. The US Department of Justice approved the State of Texas's actions.
If voters are unable to keep their own system running, MTU, the state ought to have the right to intefere and give the voters a strong incentive to wisen up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTUCache
Hmmm... sounds like the democratic system may not be the system for you.
Unfortunately, until the voters decide they want these things from their politicians, instead of the exact opposite, I seriously don't think that the state (or any other level of government) should have the power to impose that on publicly elected officials (no matter how unimaginably incompetent or corrupt they may be). The idea that Kwame would have a better chance of getting re-elected right now than Dennis Archer is pretty telling about the priorities of voters in the city, and what types of politicians they've been brought up to expect and want.
Somehow I don't think higher-level politicians pushing around lower-level ones is going to be the answer here....
i like the desolate look. its a heads up. that is why i dont like urban renewal. a false sense of security.
its like between esplanade ave and canal on royale st. in new orleans, when its desolate --- its natures way of saying start running.
Last edited by Huckleberry3911948; 07-17-2009 at 07:36 PM..
In Texas the state government has interfered when local voters do nothing to correct their own problems.
Case in point: Wilmer Hutchins ISD, covering parts of southern Dallas and the cities of Wilmer and Hutchins, was one of the most poorly-run districts in the state. The ISD ran out of money, and the state decided to have the district merged with Dallas ISD. The US Department of Justice approved the State of Texas's actions.
If voters are unable to keep their own system running, MTU, the state ought to have the right to intefere and give the voters a strong incentive to wisen up.
That I'll agree to... with only a bit of reservation. But, a school district is one thing. A city's whole government is another matter entirely.
With all the problems of the DPS, the police department, the garbage collection, etc, etc, it does seem like the simplest and best solution would be to throw all the city leaders out on their ears and put new ones in place. It may rankle some feathers, but at least it would have a shot at changing something.
But, you have to keep in mind, these leaders are the candidates that the residents want (or those directly appointed by them). The city government that is in place now is the one that has been routinely re-elected. It's not a mistake. It's just how the residents of Detroit want their government, as unbelievable as that may be to those of us on the outside looking in. Until that changes, I really don't see where any other level of government (state or federal) has the right to impose their will on those people.
Yes, minimum standards of public services must be met or there will be consequences from those state and federal departments help fund them, but if the people of Detroit would rather deal with those consequences instead of meeting those standards, you're really out of options as far as making them change.
How much stronger can they make the incentives or penalties before they're basically imposing martial law?
The lack of outrage from the citizens and voters in Detroit is easily the most puzzling thing about the whole mess, to me at least. I'm not hearing nearly enough whining or complaining from people who actually live in the city.
In jurisdictions where the school district is separate from the municipal and county governments, the school district affects the quality of life almost as much as the city (or county for the unincorporated areas) does.
The WHISD was a millstone around its area's neck; the district was so bad that charter school membership was high and that many parents illicitly sent their own kids to neighboring districts (such as Dallas ISD and Lancaster ISD).
There is a concern about taking people's voting rights. That's why the U.S. Department of Justice exists. MTU, when a state decides to take forceful action, often it has to submit its plans to the department to ensure that there was no loss of voting rights occurred. In the case of WHISD the department ruled in favor of the State of Texas, and WHISD ceased to exist.
The problem with the City of Detroit is simply the problem of WHISD on a larger scale; residents don't care, so the politicians elected are so bad. The residents need to understand that if they fail to properly exercise their rights to vote, their government will go under the control of someone else. The entire State of Michigan is suffering because of Detroit's mismanagement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTUCache
That I'll agree to... with only a bit of reservation. But, a school district is one thing. A city's whole government is another matter entirely.
With all the problems of the DPS, the police department, the garbage collection, etc, etc, it does seem like the simplest and best solution would be to throw all the city leaders out on their ears and put new ones in place. It may rankle some feathers, but at least it would have a shot at changing something.
But, you have to keep in mind, these leaders are the candidates that the residents want (or those directly appointed by them). The city government that is in place now is the one that has been routinely re-elected. It's not a mistake. It's just how the residents of Detroit want their government, as unbelievable as that may be to those of us on the outside looking in. Until that changes, I really don't see where any other level of government (state or federal) has the right to impose their will on those people.
Yes, minimum standards of public services must be met or there will be consequences from those state and federal departments help fund them, but if the people of Detroit would rather deal with those consequences instead of meeting those standards, you're really out of options as far as making them change.
How much stronger can they make the incentives or penalties before they're basically imposing martial law?
The lack of outrage from the citizens and voters in Detroit is easily the most puzzling thing about the whole mess, to me at least. I'm not hearing nearly enough whining or complaining from people who actually live in the city.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
